Health resource utilization of the emergency department headache "repeater"

OBJECTIVE: To document the health resource utilization of patients who repeatedly use emergency department services for headache care. BACKGROUND: Patients with headache who frequently use emergency department services may differ from patients with more typical, episodic migraine. Previous studies of health resource utilization have often failed to distinguish the high utilizer as a specific subset of the migraine population. DESIGN: Retrospective review of urgent care/emergency department charts, clinic charts, and pharmacy rosters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who made three or more visits for headache to an urgent care/emergency department (UC/ED) facility for headache over a 6-month study period were identified and designated as "repeaters" for this study. Pharmacy profiles and appointment histories of 52 of the 54 repeaters whose records were available were reviewed for the 12 months prior to the study period. RESULTS: Over the 6-month study period, 518 patients visited the UC/ED 1004 times for primary headache complaints. Fifty-four (10%) repeaters made 502 visits (50% of total visits; mean 9.3, range 3-50). In the 12 months prior to the study period, 52 of these repeaters made 1832 visits to the UC/ED or clinic (mean 35.2, range 0-178): 1458 (79.6%) were headache related, and 1271 (69.4%) of all visits were to the UC/ED. An estimated 12-month cost for all visits was $183,760. Pharmacy rosters showed use of narcotics in 41 of the 52 patients (annual mean +/- SD, 613 +/- 670 tablets), benzodiazepines in 30 patients (500 +/- 486 tablets), and butalbital products in 27 patients (395 +/- 590 tablets). Mean daily use of all symptomatic medications combined was 3.9 +/- 3.2 doses/day. CONCLUSION: Health resource utilization of emergency department headache repeaters is predominantly headache-related acute care. Associated medication overuse is frequently present. Efforts to improve care for patients with headache will benefit from distinguishing the high utilizer as a subset of the migraine population.     

Naratriptan in the preventive treatment of refractory chronic migraine: a review of 27 cases

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of naratriptan as preventive treatment in 27 patients with chronic migraine refractory to other commonly used preventive therapies. BACKGROUND: The treatment of chronic migraine often poses a major challenge to the clinician. Even when given expert care, patients with chronic migraine may continue to have daily or near-daily headaches. METHODS: Clinical records and headache calendars were reviewed of 27 patients fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: (1) aged 18 to 65 years; (2) diagnosis of chronic migraine (formerly transformed migraine), according to the criteria proposed by Silberstein et al; (3) previous failure of at least 4 preventive medications prescribed as part of a management program that included nonpharmacological measures, preventive medication, acute care medication, and detoxification from overused medication; and (4) have used daily naratriptan for no less than 2 consecutive months. The dose of naratriptan prescribed was 2.5 mg twice daily. We considered the following outcomes: (1) frequency of headache, (2) intensity of pain, (3) number of days per month with severe headache, (4) headache index (frequency times intensity), and (5) proportion of patients who reverted to an episodic pattern of pain after 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of headache days 2 months (15.3 days versus 24.1 days at baseline, P<.001), 6 months (9.1 days, P<.001), and 1 year (7.3 days, P<.001) after daily treatment with naratriptan was initiated. There was also a statistically significant reduction in the number of days per month of severe pain at 1 month (5.6 days versus 12.5 days at baseline, P<.01), 2 months (5.7 days, P<.01), 6 months (2.8 days, P<.01), and 1 year (2.6 days, P<.01). Similarly, there was a statistically significant reduction in the headache index at 2 months (33 versus 56.4 at baseline, P<.001), 6 months (19.5, P<.001), and 1 year (17.2, P<.001). Of the 20 patients who continued to use naratriptan daily for at least 6 months, 13 (65%) reverted to an episodic pattern of pain (migraine). At 1 year, 11 (55%) still continued to experience episodic headache, 1 (5%) relapsed to chronic migraine, and 2 (10%) were lost to follow-up. No patients had intolerability to naratriptan during the treatment period, and no one stopped treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan may have a role in the preventive treatment of intractable chronic migraine. Prospective, controlled studies should be considered.     

Emergency department management of the acute headache

Headache is a common complaint of patients seeking care at an emergency department (ED). A survey of more than 16,755 walk-in patients at an ED showed that 323 (1.9%) had a chief complaint of migraine (1). Almost one sixth of these patients had used the ED more than once. In fact, migraineurs used the ED and other health care providers 2 to 5 times more than nonmigraineurs (2). Fortunately, headaches associated with significant morbidity and mortality occur infrequently (3). The ED physician must be able to address the patient's need for pain management and establish the correct diagnosis for the headache while also ruling out any possibility of organic disease or life-threatening illness. Potential problems include ensuring appropriate follow-up and avoidance of narcotic habituation.     

Emergency department management of the acute headache

Headache is a common complaint of patients seeking care at an emergency department (ED). A survey of more than 16,755 walk-in patients at an ED showed that 323 (1.9%) had a chief complaint of migraine (1). Almost one sixth of these patients had used the ED more than once. In fact, migraineurs used the ED and other health care providers 2 to 5 times more than nonmigraineurs (2). Fortunately, headaches associated with significant morbidity and mortality occur infrequently (3). The ED physician must be able to address the patient's need for pain management and establish the correct diagnosis for the headache while also ruling out any possibility of organic disease or life-threatening illness. Potential problems include ensuring appropriate follow-up and avoidance of narcotic habituation.     

Sumatriptan-naproxen and butalbital: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study

Objectives.— The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of a sumatriptan and naproxen combination medication (SumaRT/Nap—85 mg sumatriptan and 500 mg naproxen sodium), a butalbital‐containing combination medication (BCM—50 mg butalbital, 325 mg acetaminophen, 40 mg caffeine), and placebo when used to treat moderate to severe migraine headache pain in subjects who used BCMs in the past. Background.— Despite the lack of Food and Drug Administration approval and the absence of placebo‐controlled trials to demonstrate efficacy, butalbital‐containing medications are among the most commonly prescribed acute migraine treatments in the United States. Butalbital‐containing medications are associated with serious and undesirable side effects, and have been linked to the chronification of migraine and development of medication‐overuse headaches. This study compares the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a fixed dose SumaRT/Nap versus a BCM and placebo. Methods.— Enrolled subjects were required to have treated at least 1 migraine with a butalbital medication in the past. Enrolled subjects treated 3 moderate to severe migraines using each of the 3 study treatments once in a randomized sequence. The primary endpoint compared SumaRT/Nap versus BCM for sustained pain freedom at 2‐24 hours without the use of any rescue medication. This study combines data from 2 identical outpatient, randomized, multicenter, double‐blind, double‐dummy, 3 attack crossover studies in adult migraineurs (International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition). Results.— A total of 442 subjects treated at least 1 attack with study medication. The majority of the treated subjects were female (88%) with a mean age 43 years, who reported that their migraines had a severe impact on their lives (78% with Headache Impact Test‐6 of >59). At screening, 88% of subjects reported current butalbital use; 68% had used butalbital for more than 6 weeks; and 82% reported satisfaction with butalbital. Across treatment groups, 28‐29% of subjects took study medication within 15 minutes of migraine onset, 34‐37% of subjects took study medication >15 minutes to 2 hours after onset, and 32‐36% of subjects took study medication more than 2 hours after onset. This study did not detect a difference at the nominal 0.05 level in percent sustained pain‐free between SumaRT/Nap (8%), BCM (6%), and placebo (3%). SumaRT/Nap was superior to BCM for pain free at 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48 hours (P ≤ .044); pain relief (mild or no pain) at 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48 hours (P ≤ .01); sustained pain relief 2‐24 hours (P < .001); migraine free (pain free with no nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia) at 4, 6, 8, 24, 48 hours (P ≤ .046); and complete symptom free (migraine free with no neck/sinus pain) at 4, 6, 8, 48 hours (P ≤ .031). Adverse event incidence was similar for all treatments (10%, 12%, and 9% for placebo, SumaRT/Nap, and BCM, respectively). Nausea was the most frequent adverse event (2%, 2%, and <1% for placebo, SumaRT/Nap, and BCM, respectively). Five serious adverse events were reported by 3 subjects: viral meningitis and colon neoplasm (placebo); chest pain and hypertension 17 days postdose (SumaRT/Nap); and breast cancer (BCM). Investigators judged no serious adverse events related to study medication. Conclusions.— This study primarily included subjects whose migraines significantly impacted their lives. Before the study, these subjects used butalbital‐containing medications as part of their current migraine treatment regimen and were satisfied with it, suggesting they were butalbital responders who had found a workable treatment strategy for themselves. When treated with SumaRT/Nap versus BCM in this study, however, a significant proportion of subjects reported better treatment outcomes for themselves for both migraine pain and associated symptoms. Use of SumaRT/Nap was also associated with less rescue medication use and a longer time before use of rescue medication compared with both BCM and placebo.     

Field testing alternative criteria for chronic migraine

The criteria for chronic migraine (CM), as proposed by the Second Edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2) is very restrictive, excluding most patients that evolve from episodic migraine. In this study we empirically tested three recent proposals for revised criteria for CM. We included individuals with transformed migraine (TM) with or without medication overuse, according to the criteria proposed by Silberstein and Lipton. All individuals had headache calendars for at least three consecutive months. We assessed the proportion of subjects that fulfilled ICHD-2 criteria for CM or probable chronic migraine with probable medication overuse (CM+). We also tested three proposals for making the CM criteria more inclusive. In proposal 1, CM/CM + would require at least 15 days of migraine or probable migraine per month. Proposal 2 suggests that CM/CM + would be classified in those with >or= 15 days of headache per month, where at least 50% of these days are migraine or probable migraine. Proposal 3 suggests that CM/CM + would be classified in those with chronic daily headache and at least 8 days of migraine or probable migraine per month. Among TM sufferers, 399 (62.5%) had TM with medication overuse, and just 10.2% were classified as CM+ 158 (37.5%) had TM without medication overuse; just nine (5.6%) met current ICHD-2 criteria for CM. Using the alternative criteria, proposal 1 included 48.7% of patients with TM without medication overuse; proposal 2 captured 88%, and proposal 3 classified 94.9% of these patients. For TM with medication overuse, the proportions for proposals 1-3 were, respectively, 37%, 81% and 91%. The differences were statistically significant, favouring proposal 3. Consistently, criteria for CM and CM+ should be revised to require at least 8 days of migraine or probable migraine per month, in individuals with 15 or more days of headache per month.     

Antipsychotic Adherence,Resource Use,and Costs Before and After the Initiation of Once-monthly Paliperidone Palmitate Therapy Among Medicaid Beneficiaries With Prior Schizophrenia Relapse

PurposePatients with schizophrenia often struggle with medication adherence and may benefit from the use of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, including once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M), which was previously demonstrated to improve outcomes compared with oral antipsychotics. This study assessed the impact of initiating PP1M therapy on medication adherence, health care resource use (HRU), and costs among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia and a prior schizophrenia relapse.MethodsA 6-state Medicaid database (from quarter 1 of 2009 to quarter 1 of 2018) was used to identify adults with ≥2 schizophrenia diagnoses who started PP1M therapy on or after January 1, 2010. The index date was the first PP1M claim. Patients had ≥12 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment before and after the index date, ≥1 oral antipsychotic claim in the 12 months before the index date, and ≥1 relapse (proxied as a schizophrenia-related inpatient admission or emergency department [ED] visit) during the 12 months before the index date. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare adherence to antipsychotics (proportion of days covered ≥80%), HRU, and costs (reported in 2018 US dollars) in the 12 months after versus before the index date. Sensitivity analyses were conducted (1) accounting for the minimum and cumulative price inflation Medicaid rebates for pharmacy costs of branded psychiatric medications, (2) among patients with ≥2, ≥3, and ≥4 prior schizophrenia-related inpatient admissions or ED visits, (3) among patients not adherent to antipsychotic treatment before the index date, and (4) among patients switching to PP1M directly from oral risperidone or paliperidone.FindingsA total of 1725 patients met the study inclusion criteria (mean age, 39.5 years; 43% female). After versus before the index date, patients were 93% more likely to be adherent to antipsychotic treatment (P < 0.01). The likelihood of inpatient admissions and ED visits decreased by 89% and 49% (all P < 0.01) after initiating PP1M therapy. The number of inpatient days decreased by 31% (P < 0.01) and the number of ED visits by 16% (P = 0.03). Pharmacy costs increased by $514 per-patient-per-month (PPPM), whereas medical costs, driven by inpatient costs, decreased by $391 PPPM (all P < 0.01). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar trends. Notably, total health care cost savings of $231 PPPM were observed after accounting for the cumulative Medicaid rebate for costs of branded psychiatric medications (P < 0.01).ImplicationsIn Medicaid beneficiaries with relapsed schizophrenia, transitioning from oral antipsychotics to PP1M was associated with improved adherence to antipsychotics and decreased use of inpatient and ED services. Increased pharmacy costs after the initiation of PP1M were offset by decreased medical costs. After applying the cumulative Medicaid rebate, including the price inflation rebate for costs of branded psychiatric medications, initiation of PP1M therapy resulted in statistically significant health care cost savings.     

Impact of erenumab on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization among migraine patients: a US claims database study

BackgroundMigraine is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor. This study aimed to evaluate real-world evidence on the impact of erenumab on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among migraine patients.MethodsThis retrospective effectiveness study utilized the US Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart database to identify migraine patients initiating erenumab between May 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019. Patients had to be at least 18 years old, with a minimum of three doses for erenumab in the 6-month post-index period and continuous medical/pharmacy coverage in the 12-month pre- and 6-month post-index period. The date of the first claim for erenumab served as the index date. Use of acute medications overall and at different drug class level, and HCRU were compared during the 6-month pre- vs. post-index period. Impact of erenumab on a composite endpoint of three possible events: 1) outpatient visit with a diagnosis of migraine and an associated acute medication claim within 7 days of the visit, 2) hospital admission with a primary diagnosis for migraine, or 3) emergency room visit with a primary diagnosis for migraine (any events that occurred ≤3 days apart were counted only once) was also evaluated.ResultsThe analysis included 3171 identified patients. At 6 months, following initiation of erenumab, acute medication use including the number of types of acute medication, number of claims of each medication and % of patients who received acute medication, and HCRU were significantly decreased. For the composite outcome, the mean number of events decreased from 1.03 to 0.77 (rate ratio: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.79; P < 0.0001). A decrease in the proportion of patients with any of the three events was also observed (52.7% vs. 39.5%, P < 0.0001).ConclusionIn this retrospective analysis, erenumab was associated with significantly reduced acute medication use and HCRU in a real-world setting, hence significantly reducing the burden of the disease. A composite endpoint could be used as a proxy to evaluate the burden of migraine attacks; however, further research is needed.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01238-2.